Should we enjoy high quality forms of art that depict an immoral situation? And should we even consider morality when evaluating art? I find myself constantly bringing this issue up whenever I watch a movie for example. Let's say there is a very well done movie that tells how great Suharto is? It's obviously a lie, what effect can this fact have on the value of the movie, as a piece of art.

Is it immoral to produce a work of fiction where the main antagonist is also the only representative of a disadvantaged minority? For example, a film where the psychopathic killer is also the only gay man, or where the terrorist is the only black man. Does producing such a work contribute to discrimination? What are the responsibilities of the authors/artists?

According to libertarians, a fair price is simply whatever a buyer and a seller can agree on. Critics of libertarianism say this enables exploitation, because a person in desperate circumstances might have to agree to a low price if she is to sell anything at all (ie. sweatshop workers). If we reject the libertarian definition of a fair price, what other metric can we use to determine whether a price is fair?

Is there such a thing, in philosophy, as a formula for reconciling two contradictory statements? If not, then are there guidelines or strategies to beginning the reconciliation of two contradictory statements or arguments?

My brother (a philosopher) and I have been having a discussion regarding empirical reasoning. A sticking point arose when my brother stated that the conclusion of empirical reasoning must be correct if the premises are taken as correct. I maintain that the conclusion will be correct to varying degrees if the empiric observations are several, and that the degree of correctness may change as more observations are added over time. Can you offer any insight to this argument?

What is the role of games in philosophy? I mean both games in general, and specific games, like Chess or Go.

When I think about certain philosophical issues I sometimes get very overwhelmed and feel I'm in the grip of a serious problem. For example, arguments skeptical about the external world, or other minds, or free will really cause anxiety. I believe, in these cases, that there is an external world, that there are minds other than my own, and that free will is a necessary, emergent component of phenomenological consciousness. Yet, when I hear arguments to the contrary I worry that perhaps I'm wrong, and I worry about the consequences. In general, it seems that most academic philosophers live their lives like ordinary people, and that they believe in things like free will, and they don't doubt that their children have minds, for example. What they do is try to arrive at conceptual refinements through arguments against intuitions, and explore the limits of human knowledge. But they still tackle with these metaphysical and epistemological problems, and, for me, they can at times provoke great angst. So, aside...

Hello, as a bit of background I grew up in a non-religious household and consider myself agnostic. Recently, I've had trouble coming to grips with my own mortality and while I've read through both the religion and death sections of this great website, the more I read the more I've come to believe that Tolstoy was right when he concluded in his Confession that a simple belief in God is, for lack of a better word, the "best" way to find meaning in life. (I freely admit I could be wrong) I find that philosophy helps me deal with this issue on an intellectual level, but leaves me feeling wanting on an emotional or spiritual level. Can philosophy give spiritual meaning to people's lives the same way religion does for others?

What evidence, other than reason and logic, does a philosophical claim require? What research, if any, is the philosopher obliged to do?

What is it that makes some things childish and others not? And why is it that most of the things we call childish are things we do for fun? Why are adults expected to have less fun and be more serious about everything?